what the heck happen to photo.net?

[candice]

what the heck happen dose anyone else hate the new viewing setup for

our photos? I really like looking at all the information on my photos

on one page not click for this and ....go back to that....just a

thought ..what do you think? And I am really not likeing being able

to see my rating and where they came from.

[godfrey]

I've never liked photo.net's image gallery layouts. Very restrictive and a lot of needless

clicking about.

 

Godfrey

[jt]

<p>I don't mind the clicky bits down the bottom so much, but there's some problem with the css that's causing the 'photo' section of any view-a-photo page to require horizontal scrolling, regardless of browser size (tested up to 1600x1200).</p>

<p>[goes away to fiddle]</p>

<p>Okay, it seems to be fine in IE6SP1. I was using Firefox 0.9.1. The 'offending' part of photo.css is:<br>

<code>

div.photo {

width:100%;

background:#CCCCCC;

text-align:center;

padding:5%;

margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 0px;

}

</code><br>

and it's specifically the <code>padding: 5%</code> that's a problem.</p>

<p>But what I don't know is whether it's a Firefox bug in its interpretation of the padding attribute, or a design fault on photo.net. Anyone know?</p>

[jt]

<p>Note to anyone interested in fixing the width problem: the css problem is described at <a href="http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=BoxModelHack">http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=BoxModelHack</a></p>

[maury_cohen]

My experience is that any change like this is not initially appreciated. I think it actually gives a cleaner appearance to the photo displayed. I think we'll get used to the new interface.

[mattvardy]

I HATE IT!

[._._z]

I like to see technical information on photos, so I find myself now doing a lot of extra

clicking. For those who are used to the old look (which is virtually all of us right now),

clicking on a photo ought to at least put us in the "Details" area.

[thomas_collins1]

Brian, Matt's opinions are not unanimous, but I would like to see a return to the white background. Thanks! :-)

[dougityb]

Wow. Third place I've seen Matt's post.

 

Hey Matt, Brian answered your post in another thread. I can't remember which one. Go check out his answer.

[paulstenquist]

I like the new look. It's much cleaner, much more artful. And someone oranized the

images withing my folders in a much more logical way. Very nice. However, I do wish I

knew how to move them around within the folder myself. Is there a way to do this?

Paul

[tholte]

Matt, do the world a favor and shut up!! The idea of a 17 year old high school kid trying to take control of an international photo site makes me sick. If no one else agrees with me, I will shut up. One more thing while I am at it, why do you waste your time worrying about copyrighting your images? Get a summer job mowing lawns and get a life!!!!

[arono]

Why could it not have been a checkbox somewhere (or a radio button... whatever they are

called) in the user's workspace to CHOOSE between White or Grey designs??? So the

"lookers" like me (and, I guess, Brian) could opt for the "grey" one, while the "readers" like

Matt could go for the white.

 

And now discussions sound a bit like a war of the opinionated :-)

[kslonaker]

I like the new look. Like all changes, it took a bit of getting used to, but overall, I think it focuses attention on the image itself. If after viewing the image, you are curious enough to look at the details, etc., they are there. I also find now I just rate first, THEN look to see where my ratings fit in with everyone else's, which I think will promote more honest ratings (not with mine - I try to rate honestly), but I've noticed most people tend to "go with the flow" so if you start off with very low ratings or very high ratings, they tend to continue. I would prefer a white background. For all of you having trouble adjusting to these changes, there is a book I would recommend, called "Who Moved My Cheese?"